Cameron just undermined his own marriage tax
In an interview with BBC Radio 1 listeners today, David Cameron said:
Basically I think a strong society benefits from having strong families and I think marriage is a good institution.
Of course, you know, nobody gets married for money and nobody stays married for money.
If Cameron knows that families don’t respond to financial incentives then what is the point of giving a tax break to married couples? That is simply a transfer of wealth to relatively affluent families.
In fact Cameron’s policy will just make things worse.
Last week the independent think-tank Insitute of Fiscal Studies found:
…that while the children of married couples progressed faster, this was a reflection of differences in the social and economic status of those who decide to get married instead of just living together.
In other words Cameron will financially reward married couples, who are already more affluent than co-habiting couples (on average), despite evidence it will have no impact on their children.
And he just admitted that co-habiting couples won’t get married just because of financial incentives; which undermines his central claim for the marriage tax break.
A fantasy case for Labour to stay in government
Over at LabourList, Brian Barder has been making the case for a minority Labour government in the event of a hung parliament ‘regardless of the outcome in terms of votes or seats’.
Even if Labour came third in the popular vote – indeed, if I understand him, even if Labour also has fewer seats than the Conservatives – Barder argues that Labour can and should assume the role of government under Gordon Brown. It should proceed to present a Queen’s Speech and test the nerve of the other parties – in particular the Lib Dems – to vote it down.
Barder envisages Brown producing a Queen’s speech with plenty of goodies – he refers to ‘Lib Dem shibboleths’ like civil liberties – to woo the Lib Dems.
Barder thinks the Lib Dems would think hard about voting Labour down. Why? Because if they did vote Labour down, the Tories would then get to form a minority government. They would probably offer the Lib Dems less. What would the Lib Dems then do?
Vote this government down? Barder argues this would precipitate a fresh election in which the Tories would romp home with a nice majority, thank you very much. Indeed, he confidently predicts that the result of this fresh election would be a Lib Dem ‘wipeout’.
Now if the Lib Dems rationally anticipate all of this, then of course they will stop at the first step: they will support Labour’s Queen’s speech.
As the saying goes, let’s ‘get real’. Any argument of this kind has to be based on a serious estimation of the costs and benefits to the various parties of various courses of action. What makes Barder’s story fanciful in the extreme – aside from being so objectionable in democratic terms – is the way he selectively ignores some obvious and substantial costs while hugely exaggerating others.
First, and foremost, any attempt by Labour to hold onto office on its own in such circumstances (in particular being third in the popular vote and/or being the second party in terms of seats) would drain the party of credibility in the country.
Labour is lower in the polls at the moment than it has been since the 1983 general election. But I dread to think how low the poll ratings would go if Labour attempted to cling on to office in the way that Barder describes.
Second, because we can anticipate that the attempt to cling to office will be so unpopular, we can also anticipate that it is likely to be strongly opposed from within Labour’s ranks. Could the party’s leader carry the party with him on such a journey?
Third, there is an obvious, huge cost to the Lib Dems of voting or allowing through a Labour Queen’s Speech in these circumstances. They throw away their hard-earned credibility as the ‘party of change’.
But what about the supposedly nightmare consequences to the Lib Dems of failing to support a Labour Queen’s speech? Am I not ignoring these?
It is here that Barder’s analysis switches from a convenient refusal to acknowledge costs of action to an implausible exaggeration of costs.
So let us imagine the Lib Dems do vote Labour down and a Tory minority government forms. Either they offer enough goodies to the Lib Dems to stop them voting them out, e.g., a referendum on PR, or they don’t. If they don’t, why won’t the Lib Dems vote them out too? Barder’s claim is that this would (a) precipitate a fresh election which (b) the Tories would win and (c) would see a Lib Dem ‘wipeout’.
Every single one of these assertions is questionable. Assume, for the sake of argument, that elections do get called. Barder has no basis whatsoever for predicting that the Tories would comfortably win.
If a Lib Dem – Tory deal fell through, why wouldn’t that reflect badly on the Tories? Why wouldn’t fresh elections, occurring against this sequence of events, produce a revulsion against both Labour and the Tories and a further Lib Dem surge?
If Labour fails to win a parliamentary majority at this election it had better respect the wish of the British people – something for which Barder apparently has very little respect – which would have spoken clearly against having a Labour government.
It could and should seek to go into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, not in order to ‘cling to office’, but on a basis of a genuine sharing of power and constructive cooperation on policy.
——–
cross-posted from Next Left.
The Libdem immigration policy is confusing
I have a genuine question regarding Lib Dem immigration proposals. Specifically, that employers can only employ foreign workers who have permits to work in that employer’s particular locality.
Presumably this is to stop legal migrants concentrating their labour in one area. But this seems bizarre: don’t legal migrant workers just go where the jobs are? So isn’t telling them they have to stay in one place going to make labour supply more rigid, and thus the labour market more inefficient?
Won’t this counter the economic benefits of migrant workers that Nick Clegg rightly trumpets? Aren’t the Lib Dems being, erm, statist and refusing to let the market do it’s thing – like, y’know, liberals would advocate?
More generally, isn’t this proposal reminiscent of Elizabethan poor laws that effectively forced potential workers to stay in their home parish and not follow the jobs – thus restricting economic growth tremendously?
And wasn’t the over-turning of those poor laws a major aim of 18th Century economists like Adam Smith and David Hume? Thinkers who stand at the foundation of modern political and economic liberalism?
Presumably Lib Dem proposals can’t be aimed at illegal immigrants, however. Because by definition you don’t ask for an illegal immigrant’s work permit. So telling employers they must ask for such permits won’t affect the employment of workers here illegaly.
Hence I’m struggling to see why Lib Dem policy is not guilty of being either illiberal and economically counter-productive, or just pointless. And honestly, I’m not being snide: I’m genuinely confused.
And I’m not trying to give support to Labour or the Tories. They are dancing to Nick Griffin’s tune far more enthusiastically than Clegg and Co.
But could this be a modern manifestation of what Hume called ‘Jealousy of Trade’? When economic logic dictates one thing but political demands dictate another…and politics trumps economics. To everyone’s disadvantage?
Tory support has collapsed nationally to 2005 levels
Wondering why the Tory party decided yesterday to unveil the “Labservative” copycat campaign, “The Hung Parliament Party“?
Perhaps you’re wondering why the party of the “Great Ignored”, the “Big Society”, and of course “Change” is now spending it’s time fear-mongering about the Liberal Democrats and electoral reform?
The reason is simple… the Tory support around the country is collapsing, and in some regions it is actually getting worse than it was in 2005. And, of course, it’s all down to the Liberal Democrats.
First up, prime yourself with this polling data (carried out by YouGov for PoliticsHome) for the governmental regions from 11th-18th of April. Note that this means the majority of the fieldwork took place before the first Leaders’ debate. Below is the breakdown, all figures are changes in the public support compared to the 2005 election…
| Region | Con | Lab | Lib | Nat | Other |
| Scotland | +1 | 0 | -3 | 2 | 0 |
| Wales | +5 | -1 | -3 | -3 | +3 |
| North East | +5 | -8 | +1 | — | +2 |
| North West | +5 | -8 | +1 | — | +2 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | +4 | -10 | +4 | — | +2 |
| East Midlands | +4 | -7 | +1 | — | +2 |
| West Midlands | +4 | -8 | +4 | — | 0 |
| East of England | +2 | -5 | +3 | — | +1 |
| London | +7 | -6 | 0 | — | -1 |
| South East | +5 | -5 | 0 | — | +2 |
| South West | 0 | -3 | +2 | — | 0 |
The analysis for this is fairly simple; Labour are losing out, the Tories are taking the gains, and there is a definite improvement nationwide for “Other” candidates (the exception being Plaid in Wales). So far so very much over-reported.
So how much difference does a week make?
Check out the results for the same regional style poll, but from the 19th-24th April. Again, figures are changes from the public support in 2005. change from previous week is in (brackets).
| Region | Con | Lab | Lib | Nat | Other |
| Scotland | -2 (-3) | -3 (-3) | +2 (5) | +3 (1) | -1 (-1) |
| Wales | +5 (0) | -10 (-9) | +8 (11) | -5 (-2) | +1 (-2) |
| North East | 0 (-5) | -14 (-6) | +12 (+11) | — | +5 (+3) |
| North West | 0 (-5) | -10 (-2) | +9 (+8) | — | 1 (-1) |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | -1 (-5) | -12 (-2) | +11 (+7) | — | 0 (-2) |
| East Midlands | -1 (-5) | -10 (-3) | +11 (+10) | — | 1 (-1) |
| West Midlands | +3(-1) | -11 (-3) | +8 (+4) | — | -2 (-2) |
| East of England | 0 (-2) | -10 (-5) | +8 (+5) | — | +1 (0) |
| London | +4 (-3) | -8 (-2) | +6 (+6) | — | -1 (0) |
| South East | +1(-4) | -7 (-2) | +6 (+6) | — | 1 (-1) |
| South West | -2 (-2) | -7 (-4) | +9 (+7) | — | 0 (0) |
It’s a complete change with the Lib Dems taking share away from Labour, but also clearly away from the Tories. In fact the situation is now so bad for the Tories that out of the 11 regions here they are polling either no better or worse than 2005 in 8 of them.
The only regions they are improved in are London, the West Midlands and the South East.
The Great Britain total itself taken from all these regions stands at Con 33 (-4), Lab 28 (-3) Lib 30 (+6) Other 9 (0); so as you can see it is entirely in line with polls that have been marginally back and forth for the last half a week.
Yet it is the regional data that makes it interesting.
In the South West, an area traditionally Tory that was supposed to make huge gains after local election victories is starting to slip away from them; all the good work they have done up until the election campaign in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber has been completely reversed in just one week of the public realising the Lib Dems are present and willing.
But perhaps most shockingly is the state of the South East, not entirely made up of the locations ripe for the traditional immigrant bashing, it is still a Tory strong hold polling 46% of the region’s support, but this is now only 1% better off for the Tories than it was in 2005, easily within the Margin of Error.
Could it be that not only the scandal of expenses, but that (unfortunately) specific Lib Dem policy on moving immigration to different regions may be the cause of this lack of improvement?
Unlike most areas where Lib Dem shares are increased slightly more by Labour losses on last weeks polling than the losses made by the Tories, the South East is moving more significantly from the Tories to Lib Dems than from Labour.
Tory candidates mostly avoid tuition fee petition
Hundreds of Labour and Liberal Democrat election candidates signed a petition opposing any rise in university tuition fees, it has been claimed.
The National Union of Students said around 400 Lib Dem candidates and 200 Labour candidates have signed it, making it difficult for higher fees to be introduced in the next parliament.
But only 13 Conservatives candidates signed the petition, the BBC reports today.
Tuition fees are paid in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is free to Scots in Scotland.
A review of university funding, ordered by the government, is due to report later in the summer.
Why Clegg’s attack on Brown helps Labour win seats
Clegg’s attack on Gordon Brown yesterday, while signalling his desire to be PM, is also a boon for Labour.
The media faithfully saw his gambit as an attack on Brown and Labour and the entire media cycle was dominated by that narrative. Various commentators such as Matthew D’ancona have also started talking up the prospect of a Libdem-Con alliance. Many prominent Labourites have also gone into hyper-ventilation mode, screaming ‘traitor’ at Clegg.
Brilliant. Such an alliance is highly unlikely but it’s an excellent narrative for both the Libdems and Labour.
For Libdems the advantage is that it neutralises the ‘vote Clegg get Brown’ narrative. It’s now dead and buried at a national level.
This means that voters who did shy away from Clegg because of that prospect, pushed hard by the Conservatives, can now safely vote Libdem again even if they hate Brown.
The advantage for Labour is that some voters who were thinking of tactically voting Libdem may no longer do so no. Brown is still a popular leader with tribalists. But this isn’t a big enough number.
What matters more is what happens at the marginal constituencies.
Here’s Peter Kellner yesterday in the Sunday Times:
The swing since 2005 is down to 4% in the Labour marginals — the same as the national swing. Not only is the prospect of big Conservative gains from the Lib Dems slipping away; the bonus swing the Tories had been enjoying in the Labour marginals has also disappeared.
The Lib Dem surge has hurt the Tories with special force in Labour-Conservative marginals. The 10-point gain in Lib Dem support in these seats has been overwhelmingly at the Tories’ expense.
This is very important. As I pointed out earlier – what matters isn’t necessarily the swing itself but who it is coming from. Most Libdem gains in recent weeks have been from Tory voters.
Nick Clegg’s bombshell yesterday will stop Libdem voters bleeding back to Conservatives.
That will limit Tory gains in itself. Furthermore, Clegg’s gambit will split the anti-Labour vote in some constituencies and help Labour retain seats.
Right now it’s both in Brown’s and Clegg’s interest that the latter keeps loudly rejecting the idea that voting Clegg will give people Brown.
With deliberately or not, Clegg is playing this game far better than Cameron or Brown are.
Is it time to push back on the ‘Christian vote’?
contribution by Lisa Ansell
The web of right-wing Christian lobby groups, think-tanks and political associations who have worked tirelessly to emulate the strategy of their American cousins seems to be increasingly coming into focus.
Their narrow political agenda of opposing gay rights, abortion and sex education is rapidly becoming synonymous with the ‘moral’ concern of the entire Christian community. Their extensive work encouraging Christians to politicize their faith, and establishing their influence within the Conservative Party is bearing fruit.
Earlier this month thirty-five prominent individuals and other organisations signed a statement of values calling on politicians to “protect the right of Christians” to hold their beliefs and “act according to Christian conscience”.
Publications like Christian Voice and Catholic Herald already have a long history of politicizing their readers, but that “Declaration of Conscience”, which proudly featured the former Archbishop of Canterbury’s name, took it to a whole new level.
Far from being a ‘united front’ of British Churches, the declaration features fundamentalist anti-abortion charities like Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), whose anti-abortion lobbying force in Parliament have caused concern within the house and the Charities Commission.
Professional bodies like the homophobic, anti-abortion Christian Medical Fellowship, sit alongside the likes of Christian Legal Centre (closely linked to Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON)), helping Christians to challenge anti-discrimination laws.
There has long been worry about the influence of fundamentalist lobby groups like CCFON. Their opaque links with Conservative MPs like Nadine Dorries have been subject to scrutiny, but their presence in almost every media storm which pushes this agenda show their strategy is not just political.
Will Britain go the way of the US?
Cameron and the Christian Right may look to the US for strategy, but the way this agenda is used to dismiss everything from science education to universal healthcare is a cautionary tale for voters.
Making abortion a political issue sends a reassuring message to the Christian right. Bbut simultaneously paying lip service to ‘gay rights’ and ‘abortion on demand’ underestimates the electorate. I doubt these moves are universally welcomed within the Conservative Party.
The assassination of George Tiller, and 68,000 lives lost yearly through restriction of safe abortion, have etched the hypocrisy of ‘pro-life’ rhetoric onto Britain’s consciousness.
People are questioning the moral authority of the Catholic Church for themselves, and Christians will surely tire of their faith being tied up with such a toxic agenda.
This agenda is a political one, defined solely by the restriction of other people’s rights. Yet any challenge from those whose rights are to be restricted is portrayed as more evidence of the persecution of a faith.
If this doesn’t backfire, the US provides a clear vision of the future. Maybe Libby Brooks was right: perhaps we should dust off our ‘pro-choice’ banners.
Dorries MP admits link to fundamentalist CCFON
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has admitted how close her campaign on abortion was to the fundamentalist Christian group Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON) for the first time.
In 2008 the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire spear-headed a campaign on abortion called ’20 Reasons for 20 Weeks’. Its aim was to reduce the legal limit for abortions in the UK. Around 1.6% of abortions in the UK take place that late in the pregnancy and they usually affect women suffering from domestic abuse or have other complications.
In a Libcon investigation then, we asked: Who is funding Nadine Dorries’ campaign?
We finally have a part of the answer. In an interview for the New Statesman magazine published this week, Dorries admits the website for the campaign was created by interns at CCFON.
The campaign website stated that it was not politically motivated or religious; however, I can reveal that it was registered and created by CCFON members, a fact not mentioned on the site.
When asked about the organisation’s involvement with her campaign, Dorries says it “helped out with the research”. She adds that it had “an army of interns” who proved “very useful”. And how was the slick-looking website funded? She pauses before replying: “One of their interns did the website for free.”
The article (by me) looks at the growing influence of Christian fundamentalists within the Conservative Party.
We revealed earlier that the domain name for the campaign website was also registered by someone at CCFON.
CCFON’s director Andrea Williams described herself as “fundamentalist” in a Channel 4 documentary ‘In God’s Name’ at the time (excerpt below). The documentary showed Nadine Dorries and Andrea Williams working closely together then.
CCFON isn’t a normal Christian organisation. Williams believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is 4,000 years old.
Full article on the new Christian Conservatives in this week’s New Statesman
Cameron’s falling popularity and other election tidbits
A few interesting bits I’ve gathered over the past few days…
Libdem voters less likely to turn out
“The Liberal Democrat vote is less solid than the other parties. Only 56 per cent of Lib Dems say they have definitely decided to vote, compared with 78 per cent of Tories and 74 per cent of Labour.”
Cameron’s popularity falls with more exposure
“It is a notable feature of the television debates that Mr Cameron’s likeability figures have fallen after every debate. While 53 per cent of people thought the Tory leader likeable before the debates began, 45 per cent did so after the first event and that figure dropped to 38 per cent after Thursday’s clash.”
Tories only marginall ahead on economy
“30 per cent voters picked David Cameron and George Osborne, while 27 per cent picked Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling and 22 per cent picked Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.”
Brown strong on character
“Asked who would make the best decisions when the going got tough, 43% said Brown – up five points since last week. Meanwhile, 34% said Cameron – unchanged – and 18% said Clegg, down five. He’s also seen as the most decisive of the three: 38% cited him against 33% for Cameron and 25% for Clegg. The Labour leader is also seen as the most respected global figure: 44% name him, up four points. Cameron is second on 34%, unchanged, and Clegg trails on 20%, up two.”
Clegg the least spin-orientated
“Only 19% of people who watched the debate thought he was more spin than substance, up seven on a week ago. Meanwhile Cameron remains weakest on the issue – 47% of people who saw him thought he was offering spin, the same as a week ago. Brown was seen as more spin than substance by 28%, eight points lower than last week.”
The youth vote goes Libdem
“The biggest switchers to the Lib Dems, according to Populus, have been young people, an 18-point rise to 40 per cent among those aged 25 to 34. Two fifths of the under-35s back the party, though this group is also the least likely to vote. Nearly a quarter of those now backing the Lib Dems did not vote at all in 2005. Women (34 per cent) are more inclined than men (30 per cent) to support the party. Among the quarter of voters who are don’t knows or refused to say, nearly a fifth are leaning towards the Lib Dems.”
…but unlikely to vote in big numbers
“A Comres poll for BBC Radio 1’s Newsbeat last week suggested that only a third of people aged 18 to 22 were certain to vote next month. Two fifths said they mistrusted politicians more than a year ago, but the most common reason for not voting, cited by 44 per cent, was lack of interest.”
Clegg still ahead on personal attributes
“The poll underlines that Mr Clegg scores for his personal qualities while Mr Brown is still ahead on the economy, and ties with Mr Cameron on strength. About 76 per cent regard Mr Clegg as likeable, compared with 38 per cent for Mr Cameron and just 16 per cent for Mr Brown. Mr Clegg is also well ahead on being in touch with ordinary people, on 61 per cent, against 28 per cent for Mr Cameron and 24 per cent for Mr Brown.”
Nick Clegg wants to be PM, but he can’t be over-confident
Today Nick Clegg said he wouldn’t support Brown if Labour came third in the popular vote. Some people have read this as a signal that Clegg is against the idea of supporting Labour in a coalition.
I disagree. It’s actually Clegg signalling that if Labour come third in the popular vote than then they have no choice but to have him as Prime Minister in a Labour-Libdem coalition.
I actually made that case last week, if you remember.
Following that article, an MP messaged me to say:
Seems slightly bizarre logic to me that ‘Clegg can’t stand Brown’ so Brown should stand down.
I think there are several reasons for Labour to get rid of Gordwon Brown after the election, especially if he does not win it outright. I’ll come back to those later.
But I’m safe in saying that if Labour does indeed come third in the popular vote then Clegg is in a strong position and he can legitimately make the case for being PM.
However, I think its dangerous for Clegg to make this case.
First, Labourites are then right to say it removes the incentive for tactical voting. Why should Labourites support Libdems tactically if voting for them makes it easier for Clegg to oust people from their own party?
Secondly, Clegg needs to lay out conditions (of policy) for a coalition, so at least tactical voters can make up their mind on whether a Lib-Lab coalition is likely. If the bar is so low that Libdems can join the Conservatives, then many lefties and Labour will be right to avoid them in case that scenario happens.
Lastly, Clegg is being rather over-confident; the Labour Party is not vanishing anytime soon. People don’t shift allegiances that quickly across the country. Libdems seem to be mostly picking up apathetic voters, but that is a shaky constituency that may not deliver.
And anyway, people saying they’ll vote Libdem are less likely to vote than Labour or Tory voters. Hence, like Peter Kellner, I see them coming third in the popular vote/
But if Nick Clegg keeps bashing the Labour party then he might find the left-wing vote evaporate and go back to more firmer territory.
It comes down to this: does Nick Clegg see himself as part of the progressive majority or not? Granted, New Labour needs to junk a whole range of policies. But it would be worth knowing where Clegg sees himself.
Update:
I think Paul Evans it right about the need for an anti-Tory alliance. But that does assume that the Libdems will be clearer about where they see themselves on the spectrum.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote
» Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest?
» To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone
» This trade agreement with India will destroy thousands of lives
» UK debt hasn’t hit £1 trillion – mostly because of QE
» The benefits of being a “burden” on society
» Today’s economic figures will simply confirm UK’s “lost decade”
» Have Labour realised the election is more than three years away?
» Violence in the office
» Want a more responsible capitalism? Reform how pensions work
» The world is entering the third phase of the crisis, warns ILO
|
19 Comments 33 Comments 59 Comments 18 Comments 15 Comments 25 Comments 38 Comments 7 Comments 64 Comments 11 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Max posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Sunny Hundal posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Sally posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Flowerpower posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Tom (iow) posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Anne posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Ian M Davies posted on Week of action against Atos begins Monday » Robert2012 posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » G.O. posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Dave posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Schmidt posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Link: “govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote” | Help Me Investigate Health posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Planeshift posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Makhno posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Trooper Thompson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? |
